![Quicken Home & Business 2009](http://www.bluemaumau.org/ads/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=49__zoneid=5__cb=31414332ce__maxdest=http://quicken.intuit.com/small-business-finance/home-business.jhtml?priorityCode=3969702399&kbid=8136&img=quickenaugbanners/9241-r1_q_hb_06_ws.jpg⊂=" "Quicken Home & Business 2009")
Coffee Beanery Franchisees Uncover New Evidence
Claim "Evidence Deliberately Withheld" in Pepsi Contract
ANN ARBOR (Blue MauMau) - In a Submission of New Material Evidence filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Michigan, Coffee Beanery franchisees claim the franchisor deliberately withheld an amendment to its Pepsi-Cola agreement. Harry M. Rifkin, Cohan, West, Rifkin & Cohen, states that his clients, Richard Welshans and Deborah Williams, discovered the July 10, 2003 amendment to the existing October 1999 Pepsi contract, in which the arbitrator in their case "mysteriously and without support found was not in effect."
The amendment reinforces that franchise-owned outlets shall exclusively purchase the Pepsi products and states The Coffee Beanery had already received $114,139 from Pepsi as an advance, listing the terms. The failure to disclose these obligations in the Uniform Franchise Offering Circular, according to Rifkin, directly violates the plain language of the Maryland Franchise Act and Investment Law.
The amendment also confirms that the original agreement introduced into evidence by the franchisees in arbitration was valid and in full force when they bought their franchise. He states, "The willful withholding of this Amendment likely led the arbitrator to conclude that the original Pepsi Agreement was not proved to be in full force and effect," although Coffee Beanery strongly stated that it was. When franchisees had asked for documents related to vendor contracts in discovery for the arbitration, Coffee Beanery "secretly withheld" the amendment.
Rifkin, once again, asked the court to vacate the arbitration award and grant the franchisees relief as the Court deems proper.
--
Previous Blue MauMau Article:
- Coffee Beanery Franchisees Fight On Despite Losses
- Maryland Launches New Probe into Coffee Beanery Violations
- Coffee Beanery Not To Sell Franchises in Illinois
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| SubmissionofNewEvidenceDeliberatelywithheld.pdf | 77.56 KB |
| DocumentRequesttoCoffeeBeanery.pdf | 275.58 KB |
| PepsiContractamendment.pdf | 225.39 KB |
CB Caught Again
In reading the amendment it discloses that Pepsi paid CB money up front and then determined that CB had to pay this money back.
Thats great, UPS and CB are two peas in a pod. The CB franchises are paying CBs debt,
Now wonder they are going out of business
ZEES Pay CBs Bill
As a former franchisee, I can tell you about the Pepsi contract.
CB lied to Pepsi about the # of franchises and promised more then they could produce as far as cafes.
Pepsi gave them money up front based on the information.
It did not take long for Pepsi to figure out they had been had.
To avoid a law suit CB agreed to the terms of the Amendment until they paid back the money they received under false pretenses.
So the now, franchises, are paying for yet another CB lie
CB Franchises
After reading the new evidence found by R&D, I can tell you that Pepsi will be pulled from our location.
I refuse to pay for the fraud that CB is responsible for
They just can't seem to help them selves.
How do Franchisors like this continue to stay in business?
Is there no laws?
Why does every regulator turn their head?
Can the regulators be held responsible?
I commend R&D and the UPS people for their continued fight against so many wrong doers
I can only imagine thier fight and how hard it must be to go up against State Regulators and powers that hold all the strings and the money.
It takes great courage
How Can CB
Continue to get away with all they have done?
Do you think that the regulators should start reading BMM?
They sure need something to get thier heads out of their butts.
For what good they do, why even spend the tax payers money?
Evidence
How much more could CB and thier BOZO attorneys do to prove how corrupt they are?
Joanne being the first woman VP of the IFA, I dare to say Tinker would not want her grand daughters to mentor after this woman.
The IFA and DLAPiper better start to pick and choose who is becomming more baggage,UPS or The Coffee Beanery
The answer of course would be The Coffee Beanery only because they lack the funds needed for the shield of protection provided by the IFA and DLA Piper
Not to mention that Joanne Shaw just can't keep a low profile
Aren't you contractually obligated to sell Pepsi?
If you are contractually obligated; don't you think that you should live up to your end of the contract?
Why stop selling Pepsi?
Pepsi hasn't done anything wrong and their products are well liked by consumers. You have other options than pulling Pepsi from your store:
1. Get your Pepsi products from a wholesaler
2. Get your Pepsi products from a discount club ( Sams etc. )
3. As franchisees pressure CB to treat the Pepsi rebate differently - have the rebate paid in to an advertising fund for the benefit of all franchisees.
PizzaGuy
Pepsi
We refuse to pay CBs debt to Pepsi
They took the money from Pepsi up front knowing that the deal was fraud based. Let them pay for it
Pepsi
The up front money that was paid by Pepsi to CB was for Advertising.
CB received over $200,000 from Pepsi, however they gave Pepsi false information to get the this money.
When Pepsi figured out what they did they were ready to file suit against CB, so CB allowed each individual Pepsi distributor to charge what ever they wanted until this money was paid back
I refuse to pay back money that CB defrauded from Pepsi
You can't have it both ways...
You cannot expect someone to live up to their end of a contract and not live up to your end. It's dishonest of you.
Pepsi
I understand why you're upset but you are contractually obligated - you see you would have "paid" Pepsi anyway - everyone would have as it's a rebate, normally paid after periodic sales to stores.
All Pepsi did was front the money. Pepsi aren't being paid back - they are receiving the purchase price at a slower rate than they anticipated having rebated before rather than after.
The argument as to how slow or how fast the sales volumes are achived is between CB and Pepsi.
You may have a legit gripe about CB did with the funds if they had specifically recorded somewhere that the rebate would be used for advertising.
PizzaGuy
Pepsi
No you are wrong. CB is allowing Pepsi to charge above the National Average in order to pay back money they lied to get.
Pepsi was going to file a law suit for fraud and CB decided se could pay it back
The Pepsi contract was not disclosed, so, like the R&D I'm not going to sell Pepsi.
If it was not disclosed then there is no contract
Choose your caffeine - CB or Pepsi
There is probably a provision in your agreement regarding designated products. Many smaller volume systems pay more than the national average pricing of Pepsi, the disparity is probably biggest on postmix. If you are clearly headed for a legal dispute with CB why hand them rocks to throw at you?
Sell Pepsi but choose your source.
PizzaGuy
Pepsi or Coffee
I understand what you are saying, and thanks for the advice
But I would rather force them to wxplain why I should pay for thier fraud